Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Is clearly paved with the good intentions of this sort of thing.....

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Custom-Handmade ... 20cae85190

Yep, nicely made but........


Eden.

...should be removed from ebay listing shortly.

That took some real effort! Look at the built in pickholder! Thats clever. The guy seems so genuine too, he seems so nice. He's obviously proud of his work. I almost feel bad that he legally can't sell what he worked hard on.

IvanMunoz wrote:Look at the built in pickholder!

Where's the cup holder?

IvanMunoz wrote:I almost feel bad that he legally can't sell what he worked hard on.

He should put that effort into an original design. which would be something that he could be more proud of.

IvanMunoz wrote: Look at the built in pickholder!

It's s nicely built piece but the pick holder is ******* bush league IMO.

sloop_john_b wrote:

IvanMunoz wrote: Look at the built in pickholder!

It's s nicely built piece but the pick holder is ******* bush league IMO.

I don't know what you wrote that is censored out, but my opinion on pickholders is that they are stupid. They look terrible on guitars and kind of amatureish, but still I have to hand it to the guy, the build it holder is clever.
I just put my picks in the strings or on the The Hofner, ram it underneath the neck pickup mount.

And like every other 5-string, he screwed up the headstock. Why can't folks put the headstock 2+3 instead of 3+2 so that the B and E strings can have the room for the silk leader necessary around the tuning post without binding the string? I understand that to keep the traditional headstock profile, just slightly lengthened, why Mr. JH did it, but even then, the way Ric5 does his is a much better solution at the headstock. Thanks for tolerating the rant.

iiipopes wrote:And like every other 5-string, he screwed up the headstock. Why can't folks put the headstock 2+3 instead of 3+2 so that the B and E strings can have the room for the silk leader necessary around the tuning post without binding the string? I understand that to keep the traditional headstock profile, just slightly lengthened, why Mr. JH did it, but even then, the way Ric5 does his is a much better solution at the headstock. Thanks for tolerating the rant.

I never really thought about it either way, but you do have a good point with the winding strings.

Ha! I love black walnut!

I had a coffee table made out of it once. Anyway, I digress, I'm just waiting for the boom to be lowed on this guy and his "project". Wait for it...... BOOM!!!

Sepp

iiipopes wrote:And like every other 5-string, he screwed up the headstock. Why can't folks put the headstock 2+3 instead of 3+2 so that the B and E strings can have the room for the silk leader necessary around the tuning post without binding the string?

Like these?

IvanMunoz wrote:

sloop_john_b wrote:

IvanMunoz wrote: Look at the built in pickholder!

It's s nicely built piece but the pick holder is ******* bush league IMO.

I don't know what you wrote that is censored out

JB just typed seven stars for you to use your imagination or in case you like star gazing.

jps wrote:

iiipopes wrote:And like every other 5-string, he screwed up the headstock. Why can't folks put the headstock 2+3 instead of 3+2 so that the B and E strings can have the room for the silk leader necessary around the tuning post without binding the string?

Like these?

There and extra string on there, Jeff! LOL!

IvanMunoz wrote: I don't know what you wrote that is censored out, but my opinion on pickholders is that they are stupid. They look terrible on guitars and kind of amatureish, but still I have to hand it to the guy, the build it holder is clever.
I just put my picks in the strings or on the The Hofner, ram it underneath the neck pickup mount.

Just pick any disparaging 7-letter word you like.